GOP gears up for Court fight

Tags:

Text Size

-

+

reset

Republicans see a definite political upside in waging a fight over Obama's pick to replace Justice Souter.
AP Photo

Senate Republicans admit they have virtually no shot at stopping President Barack Obama’s pick to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter — but they see a definite political upside in waging a fight.

A small cadre of GOP researchers has already begun scouring the records of Souter’s potential replacements — hoping to find a trove of inflammatory legal writings or off-the-wall positions to hang around the necks of vulnerable Democrats in the 2010 midterms, Republican aides tell POLITICO.

“Whoever they get is basically a zero-sum replacement for Souter — so I think it’s more of an opportunity for us than it is for them,” said a senior Republican leadership aide, adding that a liberal nominee could hurt conservative Democrats like Sens. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Evan Bayh (Ind.), both of whom are up for reelection in 2010. “I don’t think, given their majority, that we can stop them, but it’s a great opportunity for us to tie their incumbents to whatever crazy opinions or statements come to light.”

Even so, Republicans acknowledge they’ll need to proceed with caution during the marquee Judiciary Committee hearings to avoid further marginalizing their party and driving away would-be voters with attacks on a nominee who’s widely expected to be either a woman or a member of a minority group or both.

As the aide put it: “We have to be careful not to f—- up and overreach. So it’s a balancing act.”

National Public Radio broke the news of Souter’s retirement plans Thursday night. Obama made it official Friday, dramatically interrupting spokesman Robert Gibbs’ daily press briefing to announce Souter’s retirement and his own intention to nominate someone “who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book.”

He also indicated that he wanted the new justice to be seated in time for the high court’s next term, which begins in October.

Obama’s short list reportedly includes Judge Sonia Sotomayor of New York, a Hispanic woman; Elena Kagan, Obama's solicitor general; Diane Wood, a federal judge with Reagan- and Clinton-era Justice Department experience; and Democratic Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Harvard Law grad who once served as a federal prosecutor.

See Also

While Obama made a point of punting on the issue of gender — and a person close Obama says there are indeed “white men” under consideration — court watchers are banking on a female appointee.

That may create a ticklish dynamic for the Republicans, as their point person on the nomination will almost certainly be a white man — even if they don’t know which one yet.

When Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter switched to the Democratic Party this week, he left the Republicans without a ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will hold confirmation hearings for Obama’s nominee. Next in line after Specter is Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), but he is restricted from taking the job by Senate term limit rules. Following Hatch is Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who has already said he wants to take the job in 2011 when his term as ranking member on the powerful Finance Committee expires. But Grassley is precluded from serving as ranking Republican on two full committees simultaneously. That leaves Sen. Jeff Sessions, the conservative former U.S. attorney from Alabama.

Several GOP aides said Friday they expected Sessions to become the ranking member, which could be ratified by the conference on Tuesday. Sessions has been out of town for much of the week, traveling because of a death in his family, and hasn’t made his intentions clear.

Readers' Comments (497)

Here's a question to a potential nominee from a member of the Judiciary committee; What are your feelings regarding Article II,Section I Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution? Hint, this Court may have to rule on this historic matter.

pauldia in #1- great post... It would be surely interesting to get that hashed out in the open. I bet even the zombies who voted for him due to his race would like that to be confirmed. Twerplet in #2- what do you call progress? Destroying this once-great nation further? Idiot. To the retiring justice- nah, why waste time talking to democrats who pretend to be Americans...

The ‘Borking’ of Bork and Thomas But far and away, it was how Biden handled the Supreme Court nominations of Robert Bork in 1987 and Clarence Thomas in 1991 that drew Biden the enmity of conservatives.

Professor Stephen Calabresi of Northwestern University Law School told CNSNews.com that even though he thinks Biden is “a likeable guy,” the former Delaware prosecutor was anything but likeable during his time as head of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“The Bork hearings were themselves a travesty of justice,” Calabresi said. “Judge Bork was at the time, and is still, a distinguished constitutional scholar and government official who held many important posts in the executive branch and in the judiciary, and Sen. Biden basically organized a partisan smear campaign against Judge Bork.”

In October of 1987, federal appeals court Judge Robert H. Bork’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court was rejected in a Senate vote of 42-58 – but only after an intense pressure campaign of liberal activist groups, including People for the American Way, the National Organization of Women and NARAL -- the National Abortion Rights Action League.

“Liberal special interest groups worked hand-in-hand with the liberal members of the Judiciary committee to sink Bork, and Biden was in charge of it all,” Hausknecht said.

Bork and Thomas, both corporatist pimps. It is the philosophy of these two men (and Scalia to boot) whom we can all thank for not enforcing anti trust legislation. Paving the way for corporations to reign supreme, to become more powerful than the masses and to influence legislation that favors the entity and NOT the people.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) was already sounding that theme Friday, saying Republicans would "thoroughly investigate the nominee's background and do what the Constitution requires of us — which is give advice and consent on the nomination.”

Here's a question to a potential nominee from a member of the Judiciary committee; What are your feelings regarding Article II,Section I Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution? Hint, this Court may have to rule on this historic matter.